NationStates Jolt Archive

A choice between objects or actions is still a choice. That a choice is ultimately made which results in action (or inaction, which is still action via causing nonaction), is still a choice.

Back to your example. Woman sees fork in road. Either she (a) picks it up or (b) does not pick it up. That's a choice - a or b. If (a), the resulting universe has her with fork. If (b), the resulting universe has her without fork. She still made a choice.

Ah. You hold a belief that there are possibilities, those courses of action that are never performed and never observed. I have a simple request then. Can you demonstrate with physical evidence that there are possibilities? Can you measure a possiblilty, test it? Is there some scientific experiment that has been used to determine that there are possibilities?

Believe it or not, I do hope that you manage to prove that there are possibilities, because that would validate my own belief in free will. I didn't discuss possibilities earlier because I could see no way to validate my belief in them.

Ah. You hold a belief that there are possibilities, those courses of action that are never performed and never observed. I have a simple request then. Can you demonstrate with physical evidence that there are possibilities? Can you measure a possiblilty, test it? Is there some scientific experiment that has been used to determine that there are possibilities?

Believe it or not, I do hope that you manage to prove that there are possibilities, because that would validate my own belief in free will. I didn't discuss possibilities earlier because I could see no way to validate my belief in them.

The moment you demonstrate how it is possible to perceive now. :p

Choosing to Continue the exodus, I think


Going back to your hunter: One path, zebra tracks. The other path, water buffalo tracks. Which one to choose? Its up to the hunter. How they get to choosing is their choice. They still choose.

Assuming the Hunter is just out for whatever crosses his path, yes, that would be a choice.

Thank you for destroying determinism.



No. He chose at a prior point to become a hunter - he chose at a prior point to gain the skills to become a good hunter. These prior choices affected the skill set he has now, and the perception he has now.

And those skills have made his choosing a path leading to game determinate upon the evidence.

Nope, those skills allow more perception, and experience via education about what may be there. They do not determine how someone will react in a situation, though they do give a general concept.



There are two trails. One shows obvious game markings, the other does not. The hunter chooses the one which does not because they decide they do not want to hunt right now, they want some time to think. Or they decide it might rain and figure there is uninterrupted cover down the other path. Or they miss the signs and go down that path. There is no predetermination here - information is available, a choice is made. The means by which the choice are made are not relevant - the individual is still making a choice.


If he is no longer hunting, then yes, evidence to where game is at is moot.
Where no evidence is used it is chance. An illusory choice.

"I choose to leave it to chance" is a choice. :p



It remains a fact, twelve - or a hundred, or a million, or any number - of people viewing a situation can come to any number of conclusions.

As this is the case, each can choose differently. This supports freedom to choose.

I mentioned some cases contain conclusive evidence and others do not. That some are determined by the evidence, that others are not. A choice for some, not for all.

Ah, but within a case, you have multiple opinions. Another end to determinism.



Last part...

So, you believe choices are made irrelevant of consequence and information.


Nope. Replace "are" with "can be". How one makes a choice is up to the chooser.



The only problem I see with that is that if you do not care if information is used or a choice is made without a desired result of that choice, it was not a choice. It was chance. Or not a choice at all, as the choice could have been made or not and it would not have mattered.

Already discussed.



You did not choose to be blown up, it was determined by their being a bomb, had you known about the bomb, the door would not have been opened, or if nerve gas was in the air, you would try to hold your breath long enough to escape-or until you become unconscious from choking, afterwards you would breathe, as breathing is involuntary. Nor are they consequences of your choices as such events are not what can be expected from opening doors and breathing in everyday life provided you do not live in an area privy to such occurances being commonplace because of people who are out to get you.

Consequences are not absolutely part of choice and choosing. If it was, we'd never have had those discussions on abortion. :p



When you have no knowledge that a choice even exists then carrying on is not a choice consciously or sub-consciously with respect to the existence of that choice. As no decision has been made in light of that choice.

False. You chose not to pay attention. Not knowing there is a choice does not mean you do not choose.



Freedom to choose does tend to indicate the choice being conscious.


Nope.



At least as I see it, if you are free to do something, that usually implies volition on the part of the actor, which does not exist subconsciously.

That's nice, but not true. Any sentient being (and I'm using the definition of "able to think abstractly") can choose. Whether they choose to take advantage of that ability or not is also their choice. I can choose to go through the script of my drive to work - its the same route, the actions vary little usually, traffic is predictable. And I often do. My choice. As such, I often miss things that go on during the drive - but consequences are not part of the choosing process unless one chooses to look at the consequences in some form before making a choice.

If I could destroy determinism I would, however, I can't. Because if there is always only one outcome does that mean only one possibility actually existed. As we can not go back in time and show that choosing otherwise would have lead to another outcome, that question can not be answered. Therefore other factors determined the decision before the choice was made. It is like me trying to say God does or does not exist.

Education and developing a thought process is determinitave. They determine how a choice is made by conditioning the brain. (This is leading to something that even disturbs me :p)

For what reason are choices made? What purpose does a decision serve? An outcome, otherwise everything is determined. Leaving something to chance is not a choice, as it does not involve any thought or direction on the part of the actor. Leaving it to chance is equivalent to making no choice at all. The hunter article addressed that I believe.

Ah man, somehow it all goes back to abortion and Capital Punishment, do we choose that? :p

Talked to DLE earlier about the ability to make choices. Some lack it, and some can not excercise the choice. If you do not know a circumstance for a choice exists, you are not ignoring or not paying attention to anything. The capacities for abstract thought are not universal, there are degrees to the ability. Not many people are capable of understanding energy wavelengths, and get fried by power lines they know about, but do not understand the concept of energy waves (These are people that never touched the power line, in some cases several feet from them). They never knew or could comprehend a choice about distance existed about conditions that could extend the safety distance beyond the posted warnings.

Choosing to ignore or not pay attention also goes back to my perfect information statement. To not be ignoring or paying attention, to have the ability to make a choice whenever one exists, implies omniscience on the part of such a decision maker. As you have to no what you are ignoring or not paying attention to.

This is the common form of determinism summarized very well by BWO...

The view that thought is totally dependent on brain activity... consciousness becomes just an epiphenomenon that rides along on the actual physical processes. Thus, although we may think we are making decisions and chosing things through conscious thought we are deluded: we only think that we are thinking and that it is affecting the material world. Such eliminative materialism seems to be a quite sound proposition, but is not necessarilly a readily acceptable one - it relegates the perceived 'I' to be just an irrelevant figment that is along for the ride. (An icky concept :p)

Time for House MD. Can't miss it, it is like watching AP the doctor.

If I could destroy determinism I would, however, I can't. Because if there is always only one outcome does that mean only one possibility actually existed. As we can not go back in time and show that choosing otherwise would have lead to another outcome, that question can not be answered. Therefore other factors determined the decision before the choice was made. It is like me trying to say God does or does not exist.


"Because there was only outcome, there was only one choice". That's ridiculous. The bottle is opened or it is not. That's two possibilities. That it was opened does not mean there was not a possibility it would not be opened.

In order to determine if "God" exists or not, first you need to define God.



Education and developing a thought process is determinitave. They determine how a choice is made by conditioning the brain. (This is leading to something that even disturbs me :p)

Nope. Education and shaping determine a direction may exist - they do not absolutely require that a set of choices be made in that order. If your assertion were true, training would always result in someone who would make the same choices in the same order. This is demonstratably not the case.



For what reason are choices made? What purpose does a decision serve? An outcome, otherwise everything is determined. Leaving something to chance is not a choice, as it does not involve any thought or direction on the part of the actor. Leaving it to chance is equivalent to making no choice at all. The hunter article addressed that I believe.

Again, you do NOT have to think through a choice before you make it, or even be aware you are making it, to make it. I choose to drink the water at a restaurant. I didn't know the glass was coated in cold germs. I still chose to drink, and hence chose to be exposed to the germs.

"I choose to accept random chance as making my choice" is a choice.



Ah man, somehow it all goes back to abortion and Capital Punishment, do we choose that? :p

You do - I wasn't looking that way at this time.



Talked to DLE earlier about the ability to make choices. Some lack it, and some can not excercise the choice. If you do not know a circumstance for a choice exists, you are not ignoring or not paying attention to anything. The capacities for abstract thought are not universal, there are degrees to the ability. Not many people are capable of understanding energy wavelengths, and get fried by power lines they know about, but do not understand the concept of energy waves (These are people that never touched the power line, in some cases several feet from them). They never knew or could comprehend a choice about distance existed about conditions that could extend the safety distance beyond the posted warnings.

Again - at no point was awareness of making a choice a prerequisite for making a choice. Babies learn to walk. They may not realize that at some later point, learning that skill would result in walking in front of a bus.



Choosing to ignore or not pay attention also goes back to my perfect information statement. To not be ignoring or paying attention, to have the ability to make a choice whenever one exists, implies omniscience on the part of such a decision maker. As you have to no what you are ignoring or not paying attention to.

Radiation exists, agreed? Good. Now, you could walk into an area rife with radioactivity unknowing, and the result would be fatal. Do you know about the radiation beforehand? No. Did you still choose to walk into it? Yes.

Or in other words - you chose to walk that way. In doing so, you accepted the results of that choice, including the possible result it was a highly radioactive area. You didn't know that was a possibility, but that has no relevance to you making a choice.



This is the common form of determinism summarized very well by BWO...


The view that thought is totally dependent on brain activity... consciousness becomes just an epiphenomenon that rides along on the actual physical processes. Thus, although we may think we are making decisions and chosing things through conscious thought we are deluded: we only think that we are thinking and that it is affecting the material world. Such eliminative materialism seems to be a quite sound proposition, but is not necessarilly a readily acceptable one - it relegates the perceived 'I' to be just an irrelevant figment that is along for the ride. (An icky concept )


He is free to choose to believe whatever he wants.

I choose to believe thought has, overall, less to do with the brain then we believe. And I do not choose to believe I am deluded.

You, of course, may choose to believe anything you wish to. Good luck with that.

I am a very strong advocate for gay rights in this game and in real life. Government should be as absent of religious beliefs as possible. I for one agree in the idea of seperation of the church from the state.

In my humble opinion the wanting to deny homoseuxals the rights that hetersexuals enjoy seems to have always stemmed from a religious belief. Out of courtesy I try and respect this beiefs even though I disagree with them.

Homosexuals are humans like the rest of us, and deserve the basic rights the rest of us enjoy.

The argument that homosexuals marrying will ruin the institution of marriage is bologna. Divorce is on the rise and will keep rising. It seems to me heterosexuals have not done a good job protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Also, the idea that the point of marriage is procreation. But, what about sterile men or women who cannot have babies but still want to marry?

Another factor that guides this idea of denying homosexuals the same rights straight people have. Fear, fear of the unknown and what is different. last time I checked an open mind got you a heck of alot farther in life then a close mind. Even if you do not like gays or lesbians at last open your mind and try to see things from their shoes.

"Because there was only outcome, there was only one choice". That's ridiculous. The bottle is opened or it is not. That's two possibilities. That it was opened does not mean there was not a possibility it would not be opened.

That is not what I said. Reasons leading the bottle being opened, lead to it being opened regardless of prercieved choice. WHatever choice you think you made was not your own, other factors lead to you doing so. One aspect of determinist theory that is very difficult to disprove.

Nope. Education and shaping determine a direction may exist - they do not absolutely require that a set of choices be made in that order. If your assertion were true, training would always result in someone who would make the same choices in the same order. This is demonstratably not the case.

Followed correctly they do. Done incorrrectly they do not. Determining the correct method through trial and error takes time. Provided new factors mandate a different mode of analysis being utilized, it may never be outlined.

Again, you do NOT have to think through a choice before you make it, or even be aware you are making it, to make it. I choose to drink the water at a restaurant. I didn't know the glass was coated in cold germs. I still chose to drink, and hence chose to be exposed to the germs.

You mentiont sentient frequently. So, to consider it a choice different than that of animals, and entail the freedom to choose, awareness of making the choice is a requirement. Otherwise it is just instinctual. Like drinking water. Choosing to drink is not the same as choosing a germ infection, as you assume sanitary conditions are met by the restuarant or that you use clean dishes. Same as saying if you choose to have sex while using contraceptives you do not choose to become pregnant.

"I choose to accept random chance as making my choice" is a choice.

Illusory.


You do - I wasn't looking that way at this time.

That was a response to your bringing it up.


Again - at no point was awareness of making a choice a prerequisite for making a choice. Babies learn to walk. They may not realize that at some later point, learning that skill would result in walking in front of a bus.

Sentience

Radiation exists, agreed? Good. Now, you could walk into an area rife with radioactivity unknowing, and the result would be fatal. Do you know about the radiation beforehand? No. Did you still choose to walk into it? Yes.

Choose to walk, yes. Into radiation, no. Awareness.

Or in other words - you chose to walk that way. In doing so, you accepted the results of that choice, including the possible result it was a highly radioactive area. You didn't know that was a possibility, but that has no relevance to you making a choice.

Then a choice with respect to the risk of radiation was not made.

I choose to believe thought has, overall, less to do with the brain then we believe. And I do not choose to believe I am deluded.

You choose to believe thought has less to do with the brain than we believe. Is there some other we you are refering to here?:P
Or is it a joke playing on the sentence that followed?

You, of course, may choose to believe anything you wish to. Good luck with that.

If it is proven logical, I believe it. If it is proven illogical I do not. In those cases I have no choice. Otherwise I am deluding myself. For grey areas, I like to think I have a choice. But cut out part of my brain, and I lose that capacity. So maybe it is all just the biochemical responses to stimuli of varying forms.

According to your arguements, you have no choice in anything whatsoever - your life is predetermined, going to a predetermined point.

How mechanistic. But if thats what you wish to believe, go for it.

Determinism is garbage, plain and simple. You may choose to believe in mechanical man, who will always make the same decision under the same conditions. It makes for a very orderly existance - that such does not exist, and life does not function that way, well, whatever. Enjoy your illusion of illusory choices, illusory logic, whatever else floats your boat. Continuing this is proving pointless again.

In tradtion of the supreme court ,it has accepted the right of homosexuals and lesbians,to live in a marrige but it has not allowed religous weddings,as written in the 10 commandmants protocols,so to allow lesbian or homosexuals freedom of partnership,the supreme court introduced the civil registra,to allow same sex weddings, and so adobts and supports the UN resolution

his excellency jugde judah-ben issacs-cheif justcia supreme court

According to your arguements, you have no choice in anything whatsoever - your life is predetermined, going to a predetermined point.


Again there are two trains of thought on that. Chance occurances do not lend themselves to a predetermined life. The point is how decisions are actually made.

In either event, I said I beleive in free will and freedom of choice, as does Texan, what I don't agree with is your misrepresenting the concept.

But if the idea of consciousness being nothing more than the reflex of an organ is icky to you, like morality in law, and as such you will not provide arguments to the contrary but repeat poorly thought out giberrish again again that does not even address fully what has been presented before, then yes, the discussion becomes pointless.

In tradtion of the supreme court ,it has accepted the right of homosexuals and lesbians,to live in a marrige but it has not allowed religous weddings,as written in the 10 commandmants protocols,so to allow lesbian or homosexuals freedom of partnership,the supreme court introduced the civil registra,to allow same sex weddings, and so adobts and supports the UN resolution

his excellency jugde judah-ben issacs-cheif justcia supreme court

Oh boy, the UN Gnomes are going to have fun in your nation... you did read the FAQ before you joined, right?

In tradtion of the supreme court ,it has accepted the right of homosexuals and lesbians,to live in a marrige but it has not allowed religous weddings,as written in the 10 commandmants protocols,so to allow lesbian or homosexuals freedom of partnership,the supreme court introduced the civil registra,to allow same sex weddings, and so adobts and supports the UN resolution

his excellency jugde judah-ben issacs-cheif justcia supreme court

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't bother to read the FAQs or proposals and hopes Vastiva doesn't notice the strange handwriting:

You have no choice in the matter. UN Gnomes can override your laws. They do it all of the time.

The Dictatorship is in favor of the repeal.

The definition of marriage does not come from ONLY religion, but also in tradition and morals that SHOULD have been instilled in you people since the time you were young.

I believe that gays should be allowed to do whatever they, as long as they keep it to themselves, and don't impede on the rights of others

And yes, gay marriage will destroy marriage. Many people think that marriage is special, that it always has been and always will be. If they believe that it is no longer unique then they will just say, "Screw it, we ain't gettin' married" and have a bunch of illegitimate children. Heck, what was it, 3 months after this gay couple (one of the first gay couples in the nation (U.S.)) was married, they already asked for divorce.

And why exactly do they want to marry ANYWAY? I mean, if they want to get married to "no be having sex outside marriage' for religious reasons then isn't that kind of hypocrital? I mean, they claim to be christians, yet they don't follow something pretty important in the bible. "Neither... nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of god" Homosexuality is a SIN people

I mean, they claim to be christians, yet they don't follow something pretty important in the bible. "Neither... nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of god" Homosexuality is a SIN people

<<<Warms up typing fingers.....>>>
oh that's just too easy to tear that arguement to shreds.

Oh go on then, I'm in the mood to copy and paste old arguements....
"Neither... nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of god" An awful paraphrase of Corithians 6:9-10...

I note that The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis my own)

Notice how certain parts of the quote are different? That's because it has been translated differently from the greek word malakoi. I've found several different translations for that particular phrase/word.....effeminate, homosexual, male prostitutes, catamites, pederasts or pervert. Take your pick. The version you quote was biased - probably from a time when homosexuality was strongly frowned upon and the powers that be sought justification for their stance.

This is one of the reasons that the bible is unreliable, and one of the reasons why I personally remain sceptical over it's value.

(note: this mistranslation issue has been thrown at me several times when I was going about debunking the bible on another forum, and then advised by the "believers" that my source had translated a single word or passage different to other sources. I find it highly amusing to use the same issue to throw a spanner into the proverbial works now)

I'll add another spanner into the religous arguement....in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explicitly condemned divorce — equating it with adultery — but never explicitly forbade homosexuality; so it is hypocritical to criticize homosexuality much more vocally than divorce when divorce is now almost universally legal in christian dominated nations.

So... priests and kids is fine, but man on man is not. How about woman on woman? Never spells it out there.

Does the bible-thumper keep all the laws of the bible? If not, amazing how you can selectively use such a document...

:rolleyes:

Please people... Everyone knows, that just like communism, homosexuality doesn't work.

All you need to do is give it time, and eventually, homosexuals will reach their birth rate of 0.0 births per couple, an all time high!

Not saying that its bad to be homosexual and junk, you know, but obviously god didn't want nor support homosexuality, because the plumbing doesn't work, if you know what I mean.

And on the topic of gay marriage, it goes along the lines of, "the plumbing doesn't work," undermining the sole and original purpose of marriage.
I think that if the gays are determined to be in the minority, then the civil unions work just fine.

SMFJ

Please people... Everyone knows, that just like communism, homosexuality doesn't work.

You have no evidence for this.

All you need to do is give it time, and eventually, homosexuals will reach their birth rate of 0.0 births per couple, an all time high!

Homosexuals in my nation contribute 20% of the births. The miracle of modern technology.

Not saying that its bad to be homosexual and junk, you know, but obviously god didn't want nor support homosexuality, because the plumbing doesn't work, if you know what I mean.

No proof, arguement disproven by a simple sample.

Also, God is a really bad one to bring up here. Stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down the throats of others.

And on the topic of gay marriage, it goes along the lines of, "the plumbing doesn't work," undermining the sole and original purpose of marriage.
I think that if the gays are determined to be in the minority, then the civil unions work just fine.

Actually, that's not what marriage was originally for. All evidence points to the oldest marriages being political and social moves, not for reproduction. You would be surprised how much reproduction went on back then that did not involve marriage.

Please people... Everyone knows, that just like communism, homosexuality doesn't work.

Bad comparison. You are aware of how many achievements were accomplished by homosexuals? And how little sexual outlook has to do with anything?

Probably not, but that's what Google is for.



All you need to do is give it time, and eventually, homosexuals will reach their birth rate of 0.0 births per couple, an all time high!

Five words for you to Google-search:

"Sperm Bank"
"Artificial Insemination"
"Adoption"

:headbang:



Not saying that its bad to be homosexual and junk, you know, but obviously god didn't want nor support homosexuality, because the plumbing doesn't work, if you know what I mean.

Now you're an expert on "god"? Isn't that blasphemy, to assume one knows the mind of G*D?

Oh, btw, the "plumbing" works fine. Trust me on that.



And on the topic of gay marriage, it goes along the lines of, "the plumbing doesn't work," undermining the sole and original purpose of marriage.
I think that if the gays are determined to be in the minority, then the civil unions work just fine.
SMFJ

The "sole and original purpose of marriage"? You mean political connections and the alliance of families/clans?

I think you need to do alot more research, just so you would know how those paragraphs make you look. Without knowing how little you have shown you know, explaining it to you is a waste of time.

:headbang:

Lesbians are homosexuals and can have babies. :):)

Plato was gay, Alexander the great was gay just to name some famous gay people.

Communism doesn't work except in a sole world government situation, its a proven fact. If you don't know why, then you obviously haven't read the communist manifesto.

The reference to communism and homosexuality was a joke, in case you didnt notice, and Umm, I'm pretty sure that my argument speaks for itself.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce in real world, and i do not allow 20% to reproduce or whatever in my nation. Im talking about the real world, not in your tech-freakish lala land.

So take your head out of the sand, and get the joke.

Homosexuality is wrong. However, I see nothing wrong with homosexuals as people, but the act itself is wrong. THEY CANNOT REPRODUCE. it is like taking my car key and trying to open your front door. just dont work do it? Hence the plumbing joke.

God created people. Even if you believe the "ooze" theory of creativity, something had to create the ooze. it didnt just appear. Something also had to make god, but thats a different story altogether. Maybe im just thinking too hard.

And as for my marriage argument, while there were social and political moves involved with THE MARRIAGE, the main purpose of marriage has been controlled reproduction. In modern days, the government supports reproduction by giving tax breaks and incentives to those couples that get married, in the hope that they will indeed reproduce, and help the Production and industrial capabilities of that nation. If you look at a stark contrast of america to china, America needs the populace to maintain a strong growing industrial sector, while china has too many people to employ in its production sectors. hence, america's b/d ratio is 1.8, while china's b/d is close to 1.2, almost reaching minimum replacement.

However, in the real world, homosexuals contribute 0 births per death to society. So, every homosexual couple will die out without replacement. Hence my argument.

Read again, tell me if you need me to explain further.

This is me lowering myself to your thinking level :headbang:

By the way, I dont consider artificial insemination to be a form of reproduction.

BECAUSE... (gay male couples cannot reproduce period) but lesbian couples seek outside MALE help to procreate. the girl on girl action doesn't lead to pregnancy.

Main argument is,
the guys penis goes in the girls vagina, and babies come out. not, the guys penis goes in the guys... mouth? you know.

Maybe you need to research basic biology, but the artificial insemination discrepancy is a good point. I rebutted. your turn.

Communism doesn't work except in a sole world government situation, its a proven fact. If you don't know why, then you obviously haven't read the communist manifesto.

This has nothing to do with Homosexuality.


The reference to communism and homosexuality was a joke, in case you didnt notice, and Umm, I'm pretty sure that my argument speaks for itself.


Yes, it says :confused:



Homosexuals cannot reproduce in real world, and i do not allow 20% to reproduce or whatever in my nation. Im talking about the real world, not in your tech-freakish lala land.

You mean where the couple across the street had a child by artificial insemination? Oh, and you can't illegalize homosexual reproduction in your nation if you're in the UN. Just thought you'd want to know that. You DID read the resolutions that have passed, right?



So take your head out of the sand, and get the joke.

:rolleyes:



Homosexuality is wrong.


Oooh, an "Its ICKY!" arguement! How... original.

*rewinds tape*



However, I see nothing wrong with homosexuals as people, but the act itself is wrong. THEY CANNOT REPRODUCE. it is like taking my car key and trying to open your front door. just dont work do it? Hence the plumbing joke.

Reinforcing the fact you are showing ignorance of modern day reproductive technique is hardly a method of swaying my opinion.



God created people. Even if you believe the "ooze" theory of creativity, something had to create the ooze. it didnt just appear. Something also had to make god, but thats a different story altogether. Maybe im just thinking too hard.

*bites tongue*



And as for my marriage argument, while there were social and political moves involved with THE MARRIAGE, the main purpose of marriage has been controlled reproduction.

Nope. Today, the main purpose of marriage is tax relief and increased familial income.



In modern days, the government supports reproduction by giving tax breaks and incentives to those couples that get married, in the hope that they will indeed reproduce, and help the Production and industrial capabilities of that nation. If you look at a stark contrast of america to china, America needs the populace to maintain a strong growing industrial sector, while china has too many people to employ in its production sectors. hence, america's b/d ratio is 1.8, while china's b/d is close to 1.2, almost reaching minimum replacement.


So, you might explain why China wants people to keep marrying but reproduce less if the "main purpose" of marriage is reproduction?



However, in the real world, homosexuals contribute 0 births per death to society. So, every homosexual couple will die out without replacement. Hence my argument.

Again, you've already shown this particular ignorance.



Read again, tell me if you need me to explain further.

This is me lowering myself to your thinking level :headbang:

Oh, This is the joke you referred to! Alright. Not that good, really.

Oh, Vastiva, thanks for taking me for an ignorant ass, without even considering my opinion while posting your belief on the internet for people to see. I really apreciate it. I can see your side of the coin, least you could do is hear me out.

Prick

By the way, I dont consider artificial insemination to be a form of reproduction.

:rolleyes:



BECAUSE... (gay male couples cannot reproduce period) but lesbian couples seek outside MALE help to procreate. the girl on girl action doesn't lead to pregnancy.

See also: "Sperm Bank", "Artificial Insemination", "surrogate mother".



Main argument is,
the guys penis goes in the girls vagina, and babies come out. not, the guys penis goes in the guys... mouth? you know.

Maybe you need to research basic biology, but the artificial insemination discrepancy is a good point. I rebutted. your turn.

:rolleyes:

:headbang:

:fluffle:

:D

An "I don't like it, it's ICKY!" arguement is not a rebuttal, its a sign you don't quite understand what happens with artificial insemination. That, or you believe "anyone who isn't conceived the good ole way isn't a human!" which is racist and against UN Resolutions.

So far, you're demonstration ignorance of modern technology on many, many levels. Quitting while you're behind might help. But if not, maybe this will help.

*hands you a shovel*

I do not think that gay people should be granted holy union.
Marriage is a holy union and as God intended it should only be granted to a man and women.
I also think that gay people should not be able to adopt children, be legal gaurdians of children or be inplanted with embryos as it might have a lasting affect on the child and it might cause the child more harm in school and thus create a major problem in the future - mental abuse.

Oh, Vastiva, thanks for taking me for an ignorant ass, without even considering my opinion while posting your belief on the internet for people to see. I really apreciate it. I can see your side of the coin, least you could do is hear me out.

Prick

I heard you out. I also know better. Research would help you considerably. Might I suggest Google?

First off, I wasnt responding to you initially.

Second,
dude, you post responses to questions that i answer in like the next quotation.

For example,
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa Pimps
And as for my marriage argument, while there were social and political moves involved with THE MARRIAGE, the main purpose of marriage has been controlled reproduction.



Nope. Today, the main purpose of marriage is tax relief and increased familial income.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa Pimps
In modern days, the government supports reproduction by giving tax breaks and incentives to those couples "


Oh, the china reference was my reinforcement for CONTROLLED reproduction.

You havent even shown an opinion yet. Are you just going to rebut evidence with a " no!, daddy says that youre wrong!" or do you have something valueable to say.

I do not think that gay people should be granted holy union.
Marriage is a holy union and as God intended it should only be granted to a man and women.
I also think that gay people should not be able to adopt children, be legal gaurdians of children or be inplanted with embryos as it might have a lasting affect on the child and it might cause the child more harm in school and thus create a major problem in the future - mental abuse.

North Island : UN MEMBER

You allow it in your country.

And do you have any reasons for your beliefs, or is this another "ITS ICKY!" arguement?

VAstiva, might i suggest, go screw yourself. Im not even in the UN, im talking real world. so make your opinion, and tell it, or shut the hell up.

Like i said, make your opinion, and shut up with the whole "its icky argument" thing. My argument had nothing to do with the icky argument But you didnt take the time to read it.

P.S.I actually agree against the icky argument.

First off, I wasnt responding to you initially.

Second,
dude, you post responses to questions that i answer in like the next quotation.

For example,
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa Pimps
And as for my marriage argument, while there were social and political moves involved with THE MARRIAGE, the main purpose of marriage has been controlled reproduction.



Nope. Today, the main purpose of marriage is tax relief and increased familial income.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa Pimps
In modern days, the government supports reproduction by giving tax breaks and incentives to those couples "


Oh, the china reference was my reinforcement for CONTROLLED reproduction.

You havent even shown an opinion yet. Are you just going to rebut evidence with a " no!, daddy says that youre wrong!" or do you have something valueable to say.

Alright, my opinion is: You have demonstrated no useful knowledge of modern technology, only a racist and sexist attitude backed up by an "ITS ICKY" arguement. You have no idea what marriage "used to be" - a short trip down Google lane would prove your theory to be a bunch of hogwash. You hold to the idea that artificial insemination "doesn't make real people because a penis wasn't involved" - which proves even more ignorance on your part, this time of basic biology.

You've proven conclusively you don't have much of a clue on the topic, only loud ideas - mostly racist and sexist - and as such, your stance argues only against itself. "I don't know, so I don't like it! It's ICKY!"

Vastiva's belief - "Gays" have just as much right to a family as anyone else; we make no separation based on sex or gender. As long as they pay their taxes and the welfare of their children is seen to, Vastiva could care less if they're a Polar Bear Furry and a Penguin couple, both transexual.

If you keep that language up, you can be reported to the mods, and at worst be banned from the forums.

Vatsiva,
I did not grant gay marriage in my country and I do not think gay people are "ICKY" as you put it. My arguments are clear on my first post. READ OK

VAstiva, might i suggest, go screw yourself. Im not even in the UN, im talking real world. so make your opinion, and tell it, or shut the hell up.

Well, if you're not in the UN, why are you on these forums?

Vatsiva,
I did not grant gay marriage in my country and I do not think gay people are "ICKY" as you put it. My arguments are clear on my first post. READ OK

We suggest strongly you read past UN Resolutions. They are ALL law in your country and you have nothing to say about it. That includes "Gay Rights" and "Definition of Marriage", both of which gave the right to "gay marriage" in some form.

Screw you and your stupid ass google remarks. How bout you get off the computer and take a walk outside for a change. You obviously need to see the real world for what it is, not just your stupid fake computer reality. Yea yea "google is news" and that bull, but are you gullible enough to just blindly accept what you read on a screen and not what you see with your eyes man? Its this stupid closed minded mentality that you display that is poisoning this country. People cant even make a valid point without being criticized themselves.

Thinking now, I actually feel dumber for responding to you. You have no real opinions, thoughts, beliefs. Go home.

Like i said, make your opinion, and shut up with the whole "its icky argument" thing. My argument had nothing to do with the icky argument But you didnt take the time to read it.

P.S.I actually agree against the icky argument.

Now you've lost us. Where beyond the "it's ICKY!" arguement do you have a point? Please quote, we're very confused now.

I joined the U.N. after the Resolutions past OK and if their are any that came after that I did not see them. It was my personal oppinion.
I am not going to resign from the U.N. because one or two resolutions past that I did not like, the U.N. does many good things that I agree with.

Screw you and your stupid ass google remarks. How bout you get off the computer and take a walk outside for a change. You obviously need to see the real world for what it is, not just your stupid fake computer reality. Yea yea "google is news" and that bull, but are you gullible enough to just blindly accept what you read on a screen and not what you see with your eyes man? Its this stupid closed minded mentality that you display that is poisoning this country. People cant even make a valid point without being criticized themselves.

Thinking now, I actually feel dumber for responding to you. You have no real opinions, thoughts, beliefs. Go home.

Tell ya what. Let's you and me go to where my neighbor works and see artificial insemination up close and personal. Then you can tell me how it's not the real world and doesn't produce a baby.

I've seen it with my own eyes many times.

The floor is yours, please post your proof that it isn't real.



(apologies to the rest of the UN, I promise I'm all out of Troll Munchies to throw)

Once again, you do not read, just spew. I have stated no sexist nor racist remarks.

I have nothing wrong with gay people. I am for people living the way they want to live.

Artificial insemination is not a HOMOSEXUAL form of reproduction. a MAN is intervening because the two WOMEN are not Asexual.

WAke the hell up you moron.

I joined the U.N. after the Resolutions past OK and if their are any that came after that I did not see them. It was my personal oppinion.
I am not going to resign from the U.N. because one or two resolutions past that I did not like, the U.N. does many good things that I agree with.

Didn't ask you to resign from the UN, and am glad you're here. However, do note you're bound by all prior resolutions, including "Gay Marriage" and "Definition of Marriage". So your nation has homosexual marriages.

The UN has much potential. Have a chair. I think there will be an empty office soon for you to move into. :D

Vastiva, you have formed no opinion on any issues, only criticisms. you show how ignorant a person can be, and rather than talk with someone that cannot even disagree correctly, i bid you goodnight. I wasted an hour of my life trying to debate with a monkey. :headbang:

Hehe ok.
I know you did not ask me to resign I was just making a point that if I did not agree with the prior resolutions I should resign and make my own laws about that.

Does anyone have a reasonable statement of why "Gay Rights" should be overturned? Something logical?

Hehe ok.
I know you did not ask me to resign I was just making a point that if I did not agree with the prior resolutions I should resign and make my own laws about that.

The trick is to make your own laws which are in compliance with the Resolution, which cause it to do with what you want in some form.

If you come to realize that most of these actually help your country, you'll go far. Take "Legalize Prostitution". Due to it, Vastiva has a much increased tax base, higher fidelity, lower STDs, much lower crime, higher investments. Overall, we like it.

Does anyone have a reasonable statement of why "Gay Rights" should be overturned? Something logical?

Human Rights Resolution appears to be an Umbrella resolution making a law stating gays are to be treated equal under the law unnecessary.

However, without it, peaceful bible-toting (but apparently non biblical reading) followers of Christ would have nothing to be so violent and hateful about.

Toting it, they are always armed with a heavy object which can be thrown or used as a club.

What would Jesus do? Thump! Now turn the other cheek sinner.

It is funny because I thought god and chrstianity taught compassion and understanding.

Are yuo supposed to be jduging others sinners, I thought the judgement was left to God as well?

It is funny when you have people speaking about God and calling others sinners, but they don't even seem to follow their own relgion.

I bet Anti Pharisaism has sinned himself, and thats expected because humans sin. But, I was taught thepoint of christianity was to be compassionate and understanding and try to be the best you can be.

what would Jesus do? I think he would be compassionate. Anti Pharisaism maybe you should stop calling others sinners and focus on your own life and sprituality.

It is funny because I thought god and chrstianity taught compassion and understanding.

Are yuo supposed to be jduging others sinners, I thought the judgement was left to God as well?

It is funny when you have people speaking about God and calling others sinners, but they don't even seem to follow their own relgion.

I bet Anti Pharisaism has sinned himself, and thats expected because humans sin. But, I was taught thepoint of christianity was to be compassionate and understanding and try to be the best you can be.

what would Jesus do? I think he would be compassionate. Anti Pharisaism maybe you should stop calling others sinners and focus on your own life and sprituality.
I that almost every religion try to "be compassionate and understanding and the best you could be", but when you try to make that with humans, they always failed.
as the communism prove that there are to much greedy in humans, the present religions prove that understanding is just word in the dictionary.

Not all relgious people, some people manage to be compassionate and understanding. It seems like that is the small minority.

Does anyone have a reasonable statement of why "Gay Rights" should be overturned? Something logical?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the UN should not be dictating marriage laws to its members. Whether or not I allow gay marriage in my nation has no effect on any nation but my own.

Not all relgious people, some people manage to be compassionate and understanding. It seems like that is the small minority.
but you agree there aren't the radical highly religious ones?
while they can agree with other opinion who wasn't written in there holy book, I have no problem with the religious.

I tink it does matter whether other nations allow gay marriage. It is also important for other nations to respect and recognize gay marriages from other cuntries as well. What if a gay married couple moved to another to live there, but this nation did not allow gay marriage, I would hope at the least that nation would recognize there marriage.

In todays world people can move from country to country, we are no longer as isolatd anymore. so more and more whatwe do in our countries has an outside effect.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the UN should not be dictating marriage laws to its members. Whether or not I allow gay marriage in my nation has no effect on any nation but my own.
The UN has the right to pass decisions on every ethical issue they choose, by the power of the majority.
don't open the question about "the right of the UN to decide". if you can't accept the fact that someone else decide for you, you had no reason to stay in the UN.
sure, you had the right to claim for repealing of every decision, but you can't say that "the UN can't do that" as argument.
you better find better ones if you want to convince peoples.

The UN has the right to pass decisions on every ethical issue they choose, by the power of the majority.
don't open the question about "the right of the UN to decide". if you can't accept the fact that someone else decide for you, you had no reason to stay in the UN.
sure, you had the right to claim for repealing of every decision, but you can't say that "the UN can't do that" as argument.
you better find better ones if you want to convince peoples.
Read what I said again, I never said that they don't have the right, I said that they SHOULDN'T.

Read what I said again, I never said that they don't have the right, I said that they SHOULDN'T.
why no? you agree they had the right. they thought the subject is important enough for proposal, and let it the endoresments it was need. then the UN members decide they vote for the proposal (12,705 vs. 7,734). after that they pass proposal 80 (right of minorities and women) that says: articl IV-one should have the right to express their love for member of the same sex.
at last they pass proposal 81 (definition of marrige). note the part of "DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex".

I see the gays get rights from 3 different proposals, and all the proposal pass all the UN system. why you say the UN shouldn't pass the proposal, and ignore the fact that most of the UN don't think like you?

It is funny because I thought god and chrstianity taught compassion and understanding.

Are yuo supposed to be jduging others sinners, I thought the judgement was left to God as well?

It is funny when you have people speaking about God and calling others sinners, but they don't even seem to follow their own relgion.

I bet Anti Pharisaism has sinned himself, and thats expected because humans sin. But, I was taught thepoint of christianity was to be compassionate and understanding and try to be the best you can be.

what would Jesus do? I think he would be compassionate. Anti Pharisaism maybe you should stop calling others sinners and focus on your own life and sprituality.

It is funny because because I was taught the same thing, yet notice very few people seem to actually practice what they preach. Especially when they merely regergitate what they hear from the pulpit, have probably read parts of the bible, but not the whole book, and have seldom thought about the meaning behind what they were reading.

It's called sarcasm Avenging Angels.

I find it funny most of you do not even know what your talking about when you mention the bible and christianity.

while i agree that the UN should not be used to legislate moral issues one way or another, i am forced to see that, obviously, it is. I find it sad that people feel the need to force their views on things like this, religious or otherwise, on other nations. Why define marriage at all? A leaders decision does not need to be undermined by the UN, unless its something that concerns members of the UN. If you're gonna go around forcing a view on homosexuality on people, why not choose their religion too? or the lack of one! The UN is grossly in need of some sort of reform. If the majority is going to go around shoving things down peoples throats, just cause they can, whats to prevent the opposite from happening? How would people feel if (assuming you're in favor of gay rights) some Right-wing majority, (and i know that was generalist, not all right-wingers are antigay rights), completely outlawed any form of romantic conduct between people other than a man and a woman? A gross violation of peoples rights? Yep. But so is forcing nations to recognize such things! If a person wants to be active in the UN, but cant, simply because unscrupulous people are using it to impose their own moral agenda on other nations, how is that democratic? how is that fair, or right? You shoot down the complaints of people, but just think about the hell that would be raised if the situation was reversed, before you go around passing such legislation. I am proposing a bill to prevent the UN from legislating moral issues. if people can put aside petty differences, and accept eachother this wouldnt be needed. But depressingly, it is.

while i agree that the UN should not be used to legislate moral issues one way or another, i am forced to see that, obviously, it is. I find it sad that people feel the need to force their views on things like this, religious or otherwise, on other nations.

:Adds another name to the list of people who didn't read the FAQs:

That's its job.

Why define marriage at all? A leaders decision does not need to be undermined by the UN, unless its something that concerns members of the UN. If you're gonna go around forcing a view on homosexuality on people, why not choose their religion too? or the lack of one!

We can't without violating the resolutions we passed that say a government cannot restrict religion.

The UN is grossly in need of some sort of reform. If the majority is going to go around shoving things down peoples throats, just cause they can, whats to prevent the opposite from happening?

The fact the majority overrule the minority?

If the tide turns towards the opposite side, then that is how it will be. Part of the risk. If you don't like the risk, don't join the UN.

How would people feel if (assuming you're in favor of gay rights) some Right-wing majority, (and i know that was generalist, not all right-wingers are antigay rights), completely outlawed any form of romantic conduct between people other than a man and a woman? A gross violation of peoples rights? Yep.

And, if they are a UN member, impossible. Unless they succeed in repealing multiple resolutions on the issue.

But so is forcing nations to recognize such things! If a person wants to be active in the UN, but cant, simply because unscrupulous people are using it to impose their own moral agenda on other nations, how is that democratic?

Those "unscrupulous people" happen to hold the majority of power in the UN by sheer fact of being the majority.

How is it democratic? We vote on it and go with the decisions that get the most votes. Now you know why democracy doesn't work.

how is that fair, or right?

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

You shoot down the complaints of people, but just think about the hell that would be raised if the situation was reversed, before you go around passing such legislation.

It's part of what we do as the forum regulars. We weed out the bad arguements and go with the good.

And all it'll end up being is a case of nothing changing beyond who is in power and who isn't. That includes the n00bs who don't bother reading before clicking the "Join" button for the UN comming on here and wasting our time complaining about a pattern of decision making that has been around since before any of the people here joined.

I am proposing a bill to prevent the UN from legislating moral issues.

Game mechanics issue. Illegal. Read the stickies.

if people can put aside petty differences, and accept eachother this wouldnt be needed. But depressingly, it is.

I'll let someone else handle this one.

(OOC: I just skipped to the end to post this, I'll read the thread later)

The Doors Corporation has taken a long time to observe the resolutions passed by the NSUN, and has found this resolution:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7
Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults ... should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire ... for medical reasons

The Gay Rights Resolution is not even an add-on to this, it has already been allowed through Resolution #7 and is therefore null to the Corporation.

Also, if there is an outspoken minority that wishes to oppress homosexuals, it is just a minority.

Gay Rights also forced the issue of gay marriage being allowed, which that one did not.

My nation and reigion will never support the repealing of the gay rights act. It is our beleive that countries that do hold a lingering sense of facsism and need to wake up to the world.

It appears most of us united over this repeal of "Gay Rights"... and then started beating it with sticks.

Regardless of your standing on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed marriage, I do not think its the UN's job to change the meaning of words; The resolution to change the definition of Marriage is a good example of the UN over stepping its bounds and wasting resources.

All it did was make official in dictionaries of UN nations what was already official policy anyway. Just slapping the faces of those who oppose gay marriage.

Well thats really nice isn't it?

Regardless of your standing on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed marriage, I do not think its the UN's job to change the meaning of words; The resolution to change the definition of Marriage is a good example of the UN over stepping its bounds and wasting resources.

*cough* The long thread of discussion included notation that that right that would be "fairly given everyone" by prior resolutions was the right to marry people of the opposite sex. This was decidedly underhanded, and the proposal was written to clarify that right to be the right to marry other people who are of age to be married.

We do not therefore find it to be an "overstepping of bounds" or a "waste of resources".

The Kingdom of Lumbee....has never and will never support Gay-Rights....To be Gay is not to be a nother race...its just a stupid choice.....BAN ALL FORMS OF GAY-RIGHTS...

The Kingdom of Lumbee....has never and will never support Gay-Rights....To be Gay is not to be a nother race...its just a stupid choice.....BAN ALL FORMS OF GAY-RIGHTS...

1) No evidence to back up claims of stupidity.
2) Talking about people being another race, which is not related to the topic.
3) Wanting us to ban it just because you say so.
4) No attempt at a logical arguement.

No.

why no? you agree they had the right. they thought the subject is important enough for proposal, and let it the endoresments it was need. then the UN members decide they vote for the proposal (12,705 vs. 7,734). after that they pass proposal 80 (right of minorities and women) that says: articl IV-one should have the right to express their love for member of the same sex.
at last they pass proposal 81 (definition of marrige). note the part of "DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex".

I see the gays get rights from 3 different proposals, and all the proposal pass all the UN system. why you say the UN shouldn't pass the proposal, and ignore the fact that most of the UN don't think like you?
I say that because I'm a firm believer that the UN should only deal with things that are international in nature and this issue in not in my opnion one of them.

The Kingdom of Lumbee....has never and will never support Gay-Rights....To be Gay is not to be a nother race...its just a stupid choice.....BAN ALL FORMS OF GAY-RIGHTS...

You're not in the UN, who cares what you do?

I say that because I'm a firm believer that the UN should only deal with things that are international in nature and this issue in not in my opnion one of them.

International acceptance of a biological reality isn't an international issue?

International acceptance of a biological reality isn't an international issue?
Gay marriage is a biological reality?

Homosexuality is a biological reality.
Marriage is a social construct.

So why not expand social constructs to accept biological realities?

Homosexuality is a biological reality.
Marriage is a social construct.

So why not expand social constructs to accept biological realities?
You're talking to a nation whose government didn't even have anything to do with marriage until the "Definition of Marriage" resolution was passed. And we still have as little to do with it as possible.

You're talking to a nation whose government didn't even have anything to do with marriage until the "Definition of Marriage" resolution was passed. And we still have as little to do with it as possible.

Ok... so how did it hurt you?

OOC: read the first page and the last two, so forgive me if any of this has already been covered.

Do we need a separate resolution to ensure that gay divorce is legal?

Tell me, was there any previous UN resolution that mandated governments recognize heterosexual marriage? The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta do not want their government interfering in their personal or religious lives.

Income taxes in OPA are based on the individual without regard to whether or not they have performed certain religious rituals. Tax benefits accrue to people with children, but not to people who have decided (perversely) to limit their sexual activity to one person for the rest of their lives. Property is handled under joint tenancy law, just as it would be for any partnership.

The OPA understands neither the need for the gay rights resolution, nor the need to repeal it.

OOC: read the first page and the last two, so forgive me if any of this has already been covered.

Do we need a separate resolution to ensure that gay divorce is legal?

Divorce law is a national measure, and is not overseen by the UN at this time.



Tell me, was there any previous UN resolution that mandated governments recognize heterosexual marriage? The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta do not want their government interfering in their personal or religious lives.

Resolution #81 "Definition of Marriage"



Income taxes in OPA are based on the individual without regard to whether or not they have performed certain religious rituals. Tax benefits accrue to people with children, but not to people who have decided (perversely) to limit their sexual activity to one person for the rest of their lives. Property is handled under joint tenancy law, just as it would be for any partnership.

The OPA understands neither the need for the gay rights resolution, nor the need to repeal it.

Income tax law is a national priority. The Gay rights resolutions are international in scope, as it transcends national boundaries. We see no need to repeal them.

Awesome. Well, at least we can still prohibit men marrying sheep.

So... we now recognize marriages, but have no provision for recognizing divorces.

I feel like the Pope.

Awesome. Well, at least we can still prohibit men marrying sheep.

So... we now recognize marriages, but have no provision for recognizing divorces.

I feel like the Pope.

You can also prohibit women from marrying sheep. In point, you can't make exclusions - either everybody can marry sheep, or no one can marry sheep. It's in the resolutions somewhere - no discrimination.